Is Nadal Finished?

[Lemma]

I think it's generally the natural order of things. Players are going to keep getting better because the no 1 is always the hunted and sets the standard.

 

[Dr Awkward]

so rahul dravid is the 2nd best test bastsman ever??? Its not about quantity all the time, i refuse to accept that coming up against a guy like Djokovic who had the best year ever for a tennis player in several decades is the same as coming up against poo, roddick hewitt etc.As i said before, if rafa was the same age as federer i could have guaranteed you he would have won more slams than federer.If they were seeded 1 and 2 they would have met in the finals everytime and fed would have got owned everytime.

I know it's not just about quantity. That's why I think Laver is the GOAT.

Imo Federer dominated an era in the way that Nadal hasn't. Federer changed the game, he took it to a new level. Between 2004 and 2007 he was untouchable. It doesn't matter if Nadal would have beaten him, that's a stpuid hypothetical because you have to factor in the development of the game and the progression of tennis. Nadal has been remarkable but he has never dominated an era. He has a great record against Fed and now a poor record against Djokovic.

As a side point I also rate Rafa a little lower because I think he has been a HUGE beneficiary of the slow courts. This is more of a subjective factor, but in my mind he would never have won Wimbledon, and probably not the US Open if the courts were kept how they should be.

 

[gladiator4000]

Most of Nadal's non clay success came in the period after Fed contracted mononucleosis and before Djokovic discovered his coeliac problems. A healthy fit and motivated Nole should comfortably hold him on all surfaces save clay. Rafa is a fantastic fighter. He will remain a great force at RG and may well pinch another non clay but he will struggle to do more than that.

spot on thats the reason why nadal became the player he is today, after feds condition and hiting clse to 30.

 

[gladiator4000]

agreed.I wish sometimes that Nadal was the same age as Federer, then you will obviously know who would have had more slams and its not Federer.The period of transition post sampras to pre-nadal/roger/djoker was one of the weakest eras in mens tennis.Roger has 16 slams, most of em won beating the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Poo,Safin, Johansson, Agassi who was 35 years old and an 18year old Rafa.Sorry its not all about quantity for me.If you go by quantity, then Rahul Dravid is the 2nd best test batsman ever???

Thats ridiculous, federer and nadal the same age, watch flashbacks of federer versus sampras wimbledon 2001 the 5 set game where a 19 year old federer stopped pete from a record 7 straight grand slams.

Federer owned nadal early on, the reasons behind nadal having the edge over fed of late is simple, 2 of the grand slams won were on clay at the french open where nadal is untouchable, especially given he trained there all his junior life, and the 2009 aussie open federer had the pressue of equaling pete sampras record and it got to him.

Nadal has everything to prove and to play for, he has 6 of ten grand slams won at the french open, only 4 others, he has developed a mental edge over fe with his aggression and never say die attitude and thats what drives him.

In saying that agassi did win a grand slam aged 35 in 2005 which suggest that the likes of fe could keep going, djocovic and fed starting afresh would show fed on top.

Anyone who has watched these 2 would agree.

fed has made 20 plus grand slams

who else has come that close

 

[gladiator4000]

OK, let me pose this question then.

Between now and the end of their respective careers, who will win more Grand Slams, Federer or Nadal?

how long did nadal claim number 1 in comparison to federer?

Federer will finish on top, all that nadal can achive is perhaps 2 more french opens, agassi played till 35 and sampras till 34, both won at least 2 grand slams in their 30s, federer as an athlete will stand supreme, not one of these 2 will come close.
Tomic and murray will start pinching off them this year or next

 

[gladiator4000]

how is federers era the weakest, if the hypothetical is raised what if fed and sampras were born in the same era sampras might have say 6 grand slams etc etc.

The facts hat most people forget and have a short memory are that sampras was headed for his 7th consecutive wimbledon grand slam title and someone named federer actually beat him in 5 sets, how many french opens did sampras ever make???

Try none, never made one, as for the person who says agassi was 35 when federer beat him, 2 things
First agassi won 6 of his 8 grand slams after 25 years of age.
Secondly agassi actually won the 2005 U.S open so federer beating him is worth its weight in gold.
Federer in his prime would eat naal and djocovic, ppl are always trying to tear down a champion, federer has contested 4 french opens, lets wait and see how many the joker makes in the next 2 years.

by the age comparisons fed had them all covered appearing in every grand slam tournament, these other guys have only just begun to play all surfaces, grass, clay and hard court.

Federer has nothing left to prove, every champion has a bogey person or team, same with footy, the lions in their 4 years of dominance always struggled to beat the swans and the eagles, coincidentally these 2 teams would contest the next 2 grand finals.

nadal has become feds bogey player, its mental nothing more.

 

[Drummond]

how is federers era the weakest, if the hypothetical is raised what if fed and sampras were born in the same era sampras might have say 6 grand slams etc etc.

The facts hat most people forget and have a short memory are that sampras was headed for his 7th consecutive wimbledon grand slam title and someone named federer actually beat him in 5 sets, how many french opens did sampras ever make???

Try none, never made one, as for the person who says agassi was 35 when federer beat him, 2 things
First agassi won 6 of his 8 grand slams after 25 years of age.
Secondly agassi actually won the 2005 U.S open so federer beating him is worth its weight in gold.
Federer in his prime would eat naal and djocovic, ppl are always trying to tear down a champion, federer has contested 4 french opens, lets wait and see how many the joker makes in the next 2 years.

by the age comparisons fed had them all covered appearing in every grand slam tournament, these other guys have only just begun to play all surfaces, grass, clay and hard court.

Federer has nothing left to prove, every champion has a bogey person or team, same with footy, the lions in their 4 years of dominance always struggled to beat the swans and the eagles, coincidentally these 2 teams would contest the next 2 grand finals.

nadal has become feds bogey player, its mental nothing more.

LOL, how can you actually say that as though it's fact? You cannot. 2008 AO was pretty close to Federer's prime was it not? And that's when he lost in 3 sets to a 20 y/o Djokovic. What about 2005 French Open? 19 y/o Nadal accounted for prime Federer in his first ever French.

 

[Butcher32]

Wiliander just agreed with me Anyone with half a tennis brain will agree with this.He did though he is the best player ever, but i guess thats a diplomatic statement.He admits this era is the strongest and rogers rivals are better than Roger.The bolded part says it all

Federer better than ever but so are rivals, says Wilander
Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:59am IST

By Larry Fine

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The good news for Roger Federer, according to former world number one Mats Wilander, is that he hasn't lost any of his skill and is playing as good as ever.

But the bad news for the Swiss maestro is that the opposition has improved as well and he needs to find a way past them to add to his record collection of 16 grand slams.

"There's no question he's better now than he's ever been," Wilander told Reuters in an interview. "He's just not winning."

Wilander said Federer's biggest problem was that his two greatest rivals, Novak Djokovic and Rafa Nadal, were now playing at a much high level than the rivals he was beating when he was scooping up grand slams at will.

"There's no question that Novak Djokovic is way better than the opposition he had four, five years ago," said the Swede.

"You have to take Novak Djokovic now and compare him to Andy Roddick at his best. Not even close. Lleyton Hewitt at his best? Not even close. And those are the guys he was beating in the finals and semi-finals."

Federer won the last of his titles at the 2010 Australian Open. This year was the first time he had gone through a season without winning at least one grand slam title since he broke through to capture his first in 2003.

But Wilander, who won seven majors between 1982 and 1988, said the 30-year-old Swiss had shown he was anything but a spent force, reaching the final at the French Open this year and coming with one point of beating eventual champion Djokovic at the U.S. Open, which ended Monday.

The pair slugged it out over five gripping sets in an enthralling match that could have gone either way. Federer had two match points in the fifth set but Djokovic survived them both and won the decider 7-5.

"The first two sets again Novak were the best I have ever seen from him," Wilander said.

"Djokovic is better this year than Nadal was last year and Nadal last year was better than anyone who ever played the game probably. They just get better, they really do."

The Swede, who won the Australian Open and French Open three times each and the U.S. Open once but never Wimbledon, said there was no comparison between the standard of play between his era and now but Federer was still the best ever.

"I think they're much better (now)," he said. "I think the state of the game is incredible, amazing.

"Is Roger the best of all time? "Yes, because he has 16. That's where it all ends. Sixteen majors makes you the best player of all time."

(Editing by Julian Linden; To query or comment on this story email sportsfeedback@thomsonreuters.com)

 

[gladiator4000]

LOL, how can you actually say that as though it's fact? You cannot. 2008 AO was pretty close to Federer's prime was it not? And that's when he lost in 3 sets to a 20 y/o Djokovic. What about 2005 French Open? 19 y/o Nadal accounted for prime Federer in his first ever French.

Are you serious about 2005, federer against a clay specialist, nadal his entire life played on clay so naturally federer wasnt going to beat him
Facts are federer beat the man sampras who was going for a record 7th straight wimbledon, it was touted the boy who stoped the king, thats fact there.
2008 AO federer was not in his prime, he was 27 and Nadal leads their head-to-head 18–9. However, most of their matches have been on clay, which is statistically Nadal's best surface and statistically Federer's worst surface.
Djocovic is yet to beat federer in an actual grand slam final The two have met 24 times with Federer leading 14–10, and 5–4 in Grand Slam events

 

[Butcher32]

LOL, how can you actually say that as though it's fact? You cannot. 2008 AO was pretty close to Federer's prime was it not? And that's when he lost in 3 sets to a 20 y/o Djokovic. What about 2005 French Open? 19 y/o Nadal accounted for prime Federer in his first ever French.

2007 wimbledon final - federer at prime, nadal 20 years old playing his 3rd wimbledon...federer almost got beaten .Federer has never kicked rafas arse , ever, other than maybe at london last year.Nadal on the other hand beat him badly a few times.

 

[gladiator4000]

Wiliander just agreed with me Anyone with half a tennis brain will agree with this.He did though he is the best player ever, but i guess thats a diplomatic statement.He admits this era is the strongest and rogers rivals are better than Roger.The bolded part says it all

point taken

 

[Butcher32]

Are you serious about 2005, federer against a clay specialist, nadal his entire life played on clay so naturally federer wasnt going to beat him
Facts are federer beat the man sampras who was going for a record 7th straight wimbledon, it was touted the boy who stoped the king, thats fact there.
2008 AO federer was not in his prime, he was 27 and Nadal leads their head-to-head 18–9. However, most of their matches have been on clay, which is statistically Nadal's best surface and statistically Federer's worst surface.
Djocovic is yet to beat federer in an actual grand slam final The two have met 24 times with Federer leading 14–10, and 5–4 in Grand Slam events

he was 26..he was born in august 1981. I repeat again, Nadal never lost to federer in straight sets anywhere other than indoors.Ever! how can you say a prime federer would have eaten him alive???? got any proof of that? on the other hand on grass courts he has given federer a run for his money.Anyone remmebers the 2005 Miami? federer was unbelievably good then, rafa went up 2-0 sets playing unbelievable tennis, then ran out of gas..that was a 17 year old rafa against a prime federer.

 

[gladiator4000]

he was 26..he was born in august 1981. I repeat again, Nadal never lost to federer in straight sets anywhere other than indoors.Ever! how can you say a prime federer would have eaten him alive???? got any proof of that? on the other hand on grass courts he has given federer a run for his money.Anyone remmebers the 2005 Miami? federer was unbelievably good then, rafa went up 2-0 sets playing unbelievable tennis, then ran out of gas..that was a 17 year old rafa against a prime federer.

The year he was turning 27, Nadal leads their head-to-head 18–9. However, most of their matches have been on clay, which is statistically Nadal's best surface and statistically Federer's worst surface. Three of these matches were five set-matches (2007 and 2008
Wimbledon, 2009 Australian Open),
I can back this up with the facts there in front of you.
Federer would have eaten nadal simply because firstly federer owned him the first 2 slams they played and seondly as its pointed out in bold for you most of their games have been on clay where nadal is king of clay.
Imagine the majority of their games at all other grand slams and they would favour federer.
Every champion has a bogey mental team or individual who gives them a run for their money.
That is why federer would eat him, nadal has 6 from ten grand slams that are at the french open, take those away and your left with 1 aussie open, 1 wimbledon and 2 U.S opens.
Federer has 4 aussie opens, 6 wimbledons, 5 U.S opens and a french.
Facts prove fed on top.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Wiliander just agreed with me Anyone with half a tennis brain will agree with this.He did though he is the best player ever, but i guess thats a diplomatic statement.He admits this era is the strongest and rogers rivals are better than Roger.The bolded part says it all

It's an idiotic argument. I don't care who says it. If Federer hasn't declined, why has he lost to the likes of Berdych, Soderling and Tsonga at slams recently? I suppose those 3 players would've trounced Fed in his 'weak era' peak as well? How about losses to Stepanek, Melzer, Fish, Simon, Karlovic, Benneteau, Monfils, Gulbis and Montanes since 2008? Still peak Federer being exposed by stronger competition?

 

[gladiator4000]

It's an idiotic argument. I don't care who says it. If Federer hasn't declined, why has he lost to the likes of Berdych, Soderling and Tsonga at slams recently? I suppose those 3 players would've trounced Fed in his 'weak era' peak as well? How about losses to Stepanek, Melzer, Fish, Simon, Karlovic, Benneteau, Monfils, Gulbis and Montanes since 2008? Still peak Federer being exposed by stronger competition?

Realy??? back in 2011

During that span, Djokovic had gone on a 43–0 winning streak dating back to the Davis Cup final the previous year. Federer ended Djokovic's perfect 41–0 season defeating him in the semifinals of the 2011 French Open, but Djokovic was able to avenge his loss at the 2011 US Open, and Federer lost with a score of 6–7, 4–6, 6–3, 6–2, 7–5.[

 

[gladiator4000]

^^^^^^
Wasnt nadal ending the jokers run but the best of the lot in federer, wasnt nadal stopping pete sampras in 2001 wimbledon but federer.
Its far from idiotic, only a fool would suggest thats the case.
Federer has consistently made semis over the past 2 years and its only been 2 years since his last grand slam, he still has one maybe 2 left in him.
sampras won another 2 majors in to his 30s as did agassi.
You are little out ofyour depth.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

I have no idea what you're talking about Gladiator. I'm DEFENDING Federer by saying he isn't the player he used to be and has been on a steady decline since 2008 (backed up by poor results against obviously inferior players). Wilander is laughably claiming Federer is better than ever and is only losing because the competition is stronger.

 

[Dr Awkward]

Watching the youtube of Federer v Sampras Wimbledon 2001 has further convinced me how great Federer is. The match almost looks like a different sport to the ones we see today, it's serve volley on almost every point. The fact that Fed has been able to evolve his game from beating Sampras on fast grass to competing with the top guys on slow courts at 30 is incredible.

 

[bombermick]

Watching the youtube of Federer v Sampras Wimbledon 2001 has further convinced me how great Federer is. The match almost looks like a different sport to the ones we see today, it's serve volley on almost every point. The fact that Fed has been able to evolve his game from beating Sampras on fast grass to competing with the top guys on slow courts at 30 is incredible.

Dead on. Fed has the rare mixture of talent and game that would have made him a great in any era. Some, like Sampras, wouldn't dominate today because they don't have the baseline game.

Meanwhile, Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't have dominated early last decade too.

 

[Butcher32]

The year he was turning 27, Nadal leads their head-to-head 18–9. However, most of their matches have been on clay, which is statistically Nadal's best surface and statistically Federer's worst surface. Three of these matches were five set-matches (2007 and 2008
Wimbledon, 2009 Australian Open),
I can back this up with the facts there in front of you.
Federer would have eaten nadal simply because firstly federer owned him the first 2 slams they played and seondly as its pointed out in bold for you most of their games have been on clay where nadal is king of clay.
Imagine the majority of their games at all other grand slams and they would favour federer.
Every champion has a bogey mental team or individual who gives them a run for their money.
That is why federer would eat him, nadal has 6 from ten grand slams that are at the french open, take those away and your left with 1 aussie open, 1 wimbledon and 2 U.S opens.
Federer has 4 aussie opens, 6 wimbledons, 5 U.S opens and a french.
Facts prove fed on top.

ok so he was turning 27 so?? shall we discount all record and only count peak records? then borg will own everyone.Then fed had mono, then he was too old.. blah blah.We should only count 2004-2007? to show how great fed ways? bad news for you, even as an underaged kid, Nadal did beat Federer on hardcourts, yep when he was at his peak.Then i can mount an argument too, ok before 2007, nadal was too young.He was not at his peak, he only peaked after 2007 (which is true).You see how silly the argument is? Seriously, all courts count, all surfaces count.Clay has 3 masters series and a grand slam.It counts, hardcourts have 4 master series and 2 slams.So they all count.Its silly to say "but its only clay". There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest federer would have owned nadal if they met on hardcourts (outdoors).Everytime they faced on outdoor hardcourts, it could have gone either way.

 

[Butcher32]

It's an idiotic argument. I don't care who says it. If Federer hasn't declined, why has he lost to the likes of Berdych, Soderling and Tsonga at slams recently? I suppose those 3 players would've trounced Fed in his 'weak era' peak as well? How about losses to Stepanek, Melzer, Fish, Simon, Karlovic, Benneteau, Monfils, Gulbis and Montanes since 2008? Still peak Federer being exposed by stronger competition?

Maybe federer has decided to concentrate on slams? Wilander was referring to slams here, in masters cup who gives a rats arse really? for a guy like federer its no longer the priority.Soderling palyed out of his skin to beat Roger, so did Tsonga.I will pay you the berdych one, but give some credit to the opponent. He was playing flawless tennis at A.O till he ran into Nadal.He barely broke a sweat to reach the semis.

 

[Butcher32]

I have no idea what you're talking about Gladiator. I'm DEFENDING Federer by saying he isn't the player he used to be and has been on a steady decline since 2008 (backed up by poor results against obviously inferior players). Wilander is laughably claiming Federer is better than ever and is only losing because the competition is stronger.

lol..yeah his decline started with the rise of the next generation..how ironic is it? and really move over this 2004-07 argument.Wilander didnt wanna start another controversy so he said fed is the best ever...do you remember in 2007 he said Fed doesnt have balls while facing Nadal? that raised a lot of eyebrows and he was heavily criticised. He was being diplomatic.But is it wrong to say that beating hewitt in the final is easier than beating djokovic who had the best ever of anyone in the open era since laver maybe? or beating nadal in the finals? anyone who claims otherwise is kidding themselves. He is spot on when he made the comment that he won too many slams by beating a bunch of no namers.

 

[Butcher32]

^^^^^^
Wasnt nadal ending the jokers run but the best of the lot in federer, wasnt nadal stopping pete sampras in 2001 wimbledon but federer.
Its far from idiotic, only a fool would suggest thats the case.
Federer has consistently made semis over the past 2 years and its only been 2 years since his last grand slam, he still has one maybe 2 left in him.
sampras won another 2 majors in to his 30s as did agassi.
You are little out ofyour depth.

this is the whole point...federer can beat ANYONE but just not nadal on djokovic anymore.(yeah ok lost the odd one to tsonga or berdych).Its clear that both nadal and djokovic has gone past him and is able to compete with fed.Federer is still the 3rd best player in the world by a country mile.People whinning about mono in 2008 needs to get the facts right, he could beat anyone other than Nadal in slams.Some mono that was should be called Nadno

 

[gladiator4000]

this is the whole point...federer can beat ANYONE but just not nadal on djokovic anymore.(yeah ok lost the odd one to tsonga or berdych).Its clear that both nadal and djokovic has gone past him and is able to compete with fed.Federer is still the 3rd best player in the world by a country mile.People whinning about mono in 2008 needs to get the facts right, he could beat anyone other than Nadal in slams.Some mono that was should be called Nadno

Do you think fed can win a grand slam this year or next before he hangs his racket up

 

[gladiator4000]

I have no idea what you're talking about Gladiator. I'm DEFENDING Federer by saying he isn't the player he used to be and has been on a steady decline since 2008 (backed up by poor results against obviously inferior players). Wilander is laughably claiming Federer is better than ever and is only losing because the competition is stronger.

dude you misunderstood me, I get you are defending federer, most have suggested that its convenient fed is not capable of dominating since nadal and djocovic have won grand slams, but at 31 (this year) and to be number 3 in the world.
Lets see where both nadal and djocovic will be when they hit 38 or 29.
All Im saying is fed in his prime against the top 2 would win 7 times maybe 8 from 10.
as someone posted watching him beat sampras shows he can match it in any era.
Not sure about nadal and novak though.
Your statement proves just how good fed is